On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode < [email protected]> wrote:
> > It is in present continuous tense, so, samples from 19th century are not > valid. (They are probably also not valid formally, but I have to check > those books first.) > What is “formal validity”? Those books exist. They are facts. We analyse > material in order to describe the structure of scripts. > Yes, and for that we need to see a full book and corresponding materials of that book, not only sOME eXAMPLE. If the book does not follow the same convention for other text, then there is a question. (I am not trying to construct something artificial here just to argue with you, I just saw enough books from 19th century to understand how they are formatted usually, that is why I mean I need to check it. However, I do realize that there is no interest in that at all.)
